Level Up (A5E) What is the vision of the high level fighter?

[CapnZapp]

A lot of people say that, but IMNSHO that is mostly a product of their being weak compared with PF1 Wizards (who are of course godlike), rather than actually being underpowered.

_
glass.

I say that.

And I'm a big champion of doing away with godlike d20 casters, so I can assure you my opinion isn't dismissable like that.

I far prefer 5Es specific solutions to the LFQW problem over PF2s.

 

[Coroc]

Out of curiosity, are you ok with Bards, Rangers, Sorcerers, and Warlocks just getting new known spells, or do you make them acquire them in some fashion as well?

different, bards similar, the learn it at some college. Ranger is divine so he prays for them. Warlocks get.them from their patron. Sorcerers are the exception for them it is innate.

still if any spells are not (or not easy) to acquire, for what class ever, i communicate that in session 0

 

[glass]

I say that. And I'm a big champion of doing away with godlike d20 casters, so I can assure you my opinion isn't dismissable like that.

PF2 has been out for a year. After 3e had been out for a year, people were still routinely saying Monks were overpowered. I am quite comtortable dismissing the balance opinions of any random person on the internet, especially whene they make comments like...

I far prefer 5Es specific solutions to the LFQW problem over PF2s.

The only "LFQW" problem that 5e can conceivably have solved is "people like LFQW, so we need to add some back".

_
glass.

 

[Coroc]

I mean, these aren't assumptions. Any wizard would try to have access to these spells, especially at high levels.

And while it's true that spells can be banned or given by the DM, I believe we're all working under the assumption that the DM hasn't given or taken anything away.

see and some want the same for fighters, and since * every* fighter wants to become king with an according ruleset e.g. every fighter gets a castle and some men at arms granted at level 9 - no matter the campaign.

so you are in the middle of Barovia and hit lvl 9, how convenient that Count Strahd is around to knight you and give you what is yours by RAW

 

[FrogReaver]

see and some want the same for fighters, and since * every* fighter wants to become king with an according ruleset e.g. every fighter gets a castle and some men at arms granted at level 9 - no matter the campaign.

so you are in the middle of Barovia and hit lvl 9, how convenient that Count Strahd is around to knight you and give you what is yours by RAW

Actually that was mentioned as an option, 1 alongside many others.

 

[Coroc]

Actually that was mentioned as an option, 1 alongside many others.

i just want to point out to you guys that an improvement to the game would be to have options in how to handle the game.
one to cater to those who say i am in the middle of nowhere, no mage academy around , no lab so i can research on my own, no comrade mage so i can copy from their spell book but i insist i suddenly learn the teleport me out of the situation spell because it is in the RAW and i levelled up, and another which allows to RP things a bit more believable.
For the former i recommend that they also play with the fighters shenanigans appearing out of thin air if there is no other solution - i mean for me this would be a ridiculous playstyle, but to everyone that which he prefers, i don't call that bad wrong fun.

if your new set of rules emboldens the give me that its in the book mentality then this might be what you hope for but it's not for me then.

 

[FrogReaver]

i just want to point out to you guys that an improvement to the game would be to have options in how to handle the game.
one to cater to those who say i am in the middle of nowhere, no mage academy around , no lab so i can research on my own, no comrade mage so i can copy from their spell book but i insist i suddenly learn the teleport me out of the situation spell because it is in the RAW and i levelled up, and another which allows to RP things a bit more believable.
For the former i recommend that they also play with the fighters shenanigans appearing out of thin air if there is no other solution - i mean for me this would be a ridiculous playstyle, but to everyone that which he prefers, i don't call that bad wrong fun.

if your new set of rules emboldens the give me that its in the book mentality then this might be what you hope for but it's not for me then.

my idea would be the dm can veto any particular option based on setting.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

i just want to point out to you guys that an improvement to the game would be to have options in how to handle the game.
one to cater to those who say i am in the middle of nowhere, no mage academy around , no lab so i can research on my own, no comrade mage so i can copy from their spell book but i insist i suddenly learn the teleport me out of the situation spell because it is in the RAW and i levelled up, and another which allows to RP things a bit more believable.
For the former i recommend that they also play with the fighters shenanigans appearing out of thin air if there is no other solution - i mean for me this would be a ridiculous playstyle, but to everyone that which he prefers, i don't call that bad wrong fun.

if your new set of rules emboldens the give me that its in the book mentality then this might be what you hope for but it's not for me then.

I understand what you mean, but at the same time, its pretty hard for a game to make a rule for every possible thing a DM might allows/disallows, no? I agree with you that that would be the best, but is it a realistic demand?

Like, if a pick a ranger with the forest terrain exploration bonus, and then the DM decides we are adventuring in the desert, what do we do? Add a feature that allows to change terrain bonus? But in-setting I'm a master of the forest because I spent my life there, but now a might switch to Desert mastery after a day? That is not believable! But sometime you have to make concession on the ''make senses'' side of the game to allow the game to be more playable.

So, for you wizard with no access to magic labs at level up so there's no believable reason to have new spells in his book. What do you do? You enforce training cost and downtime on level up? That could work. But what if the party is on a time limit? I cant level up? I can gain the HP from level up but cant get my new features? It does make the whole thing more credible, but is it more fun? Should in-setting realism trumps the accessibility and fun of the game? Should the gamebook have a potential rule for all those possibilities?

I honestly dont have the answer to those.

 

[TheSword]

PF2 has been out for a year. After 3e had been out for a year, people were still routinely saying Monks were overpowered. I am quite comtortable dismissing the balance opinions of any random person on the internet, especially whene they make comments like...

The only "LFQW" problem that 5e can conceivably have solved is "people like LFQW, so we need to add some back".

_
glass.

That’s a fairly insubstantiated claim about LFQW.

• Removing the link between caster level and power from spell descriptions.
• Limiting high level spell slots to 1 per day.
• Concentration
• Restricting metamagic to sorcerer only in limited uses.
• Limits on summoned/risen creatures
• Revised spells like teleport
• Removal of permanency
• Legendary resistances

These things don’t address the LFQW problem?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

so you are in the middle of Barovia and hit lvl 9, how convenient that Count Strahd is around to knight you and give you what is yours by RAW

Isnt that much of a stretch that after 9 (a little low, I prefer those feature at level 11+) in Barovia, the fighter, the leader of man, the expert of the battle field, can muster a militia in one of the village or found a knightly order in an abandoned fort in the mountain? And after 20 level of battlefield expertise, call himself regent of a small settlement by offering the inhabitant is full, 20th level fighter, protection? Now, how that will work out between him and Strahd after gaining such things is another history, but that's the goal of a feature: creating an interesting history.

And should those things be impossible in your game, maybe just have them be big features in terms of roleplay yet small features in mechanical terms, so that they can be easily handwaved should the DM wishes to. Like the features that makes you un-aging and sustain yourself with you own mind, or thief's cant and druidic signs.

By the way, the game already has Temple of the God as a spell where I can erect a full-on magic temple to my deity in the middle of Barovia, no matter what the DM says (unless he vetoes it, but that's another thing: the DM can veto anything. The book cannot hold rules to replace any options the DM might veto!).

EDIT: Again, this is just one option that was discussed. But the others wont please you much more:

• Christmas Tree fighter: the fighter suddenly has new magic items at X levels.
• Demigod fighter: the fighter receives boon and blessing at higher level.
• Wuxia fighter: the fighter can break the physics of the setting at X level.

etc

Lets be honest: class features are already meta options for the players to veto the in-setting rules. The Lost Woods where people are lost forever? Not for this ranger! The impenetrable vault of the King of Greed? Not for this rogue with Stroke of Luck and expertise. The Great Desert of Thirst where even the water from your eyes seems to disappear? I can Create Water!

Now, again, a specific DM might have to deal with those because he dont like them, but the presence of said features doest not mean that the book enforce a ''give me that'' attitude from the players, as long as they are not an optional rules from a non-player book.